ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
File talk:SpaceShuttleEnterprise.jpg
Reason for revert This image is specifically supposed to be the Space Shuttle Enterprise as seen in the opening credits of "Enterprise". Other versions, not from Star Trek, have been deleted in the past. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Remove Bakula Can someone please edit out Scott Bakula's name? This image is used in the in-universe section of the Enterprise (OV-101) article, and it would be nice to keep it there. - 09:05, December 28, 2010 (UTC) :I believe it was discussed in the past, and decided that we didn't want to edit the images that way (with this being a specific example). I forget the exact reason, but it either set a bad precedent for altering images, or violated "fair use" and therefore made it no longer legal for us to use the image. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:28, December 28, 2010 (UTC) I would very much like to see that discussion, since we might have a problem then. - 20:43, December 28, 2010 (UTC) ::That shuttle was on screen for longer than the words. Trekcore doesn't have every frame of the show online. -- sulfur 01:14, December 29, 2010 (UTC) Actually it wasn't, at least not in the shot we have, as you can see where Linda Park was removed at full resolution. The reason I want to see the discussion is that we have edited shots before. - 01:36, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :::It's a bit hard to catch, but you can actually get a shot of the shuttle before Bakula's credit comes up. It only says "nterprise" though. ;-) :::Another issue is that this picture is also used on Bakula's page to demonstrate his credit.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:52, December 29, 2010 (UTC) I'm all for two files, one with the name removed, and another to credit the first at least. Same for the others I've pointed out. We could even create a different template to use on those pages so they can be found quickly if we're concerned that there might be a copyright issue, though I don't see how there would be in these cases. - 02:01, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :"Templates" don't get rid of copyright issues. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:12, December 29, 2010 (UTC) I don't see any "copyright issue" with what I've purposed, and no one so far seems to remember where the previous discussion was or the reasoning behind why "we" though it would be an issue. From what I've read images edited in this manner and marked as such would still fall under "fair use". Short of a lawsuit, I doubt there's any way to prove it one way or the other, but keeping track of these images would help with removing them if that happened, which is what I purposed the template for. - 05:25, December 29, 2010 (UTC) :You've proposed modifying the image. Once we modify the image, we may no longer fall under "fair use." Whether I can find a previous discussion doesn't change the tenants of "fair use." Essentially, we barely have a case (but have a slim one under "educational intent") for using the images at all under "fair use." Once we alter the images, we are crossing also into "modification rights," which we do NOT have under educational use. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html talks a bit about this, and how modification is different (and worse) than simple copying. Do you really think we or Wikia should just do it and wait for the lawsuit? Is that how we treat people listing pirating websites? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:51, December 29, 2010 (UTC) I would say that this would be transformative instead of derivative, as briefly described here. Either way, the interpretation of fair use isn't set in stone, so the analogy between this and pirating websites isn't helpful at all. Also, this image itself is already modified from an image most likely owned by NASA, we aren't charging for it nor is there much of a case that money is lost because this image is freely available, and we aren't claiming credit for the new, altered image, so I doubt that the increase of blue pixels would lead to expensive things such as lawyers becoming involved. That said, we do need to come to some sort of consensus on this now for this image, as well as the others since we clearly are already in trouble and have been for nearly 4 years now. - 06:41, December 29, 2010 (UTC)